Delhi High Court
Mr Hari Singh vs M S Superhouse Ltd. on 14 September, 2021
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:15.09.2021 17:18:08
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th September, 2021.
+ C.R.P. 61/2021
MR HARI SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Ms. Gunjan Arora
and Mr. Yugal Choudhary,
Advocates. (M:9810444651)
versus
M S SUPERHOUSE LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Panda, Advocate.
(M:9811964302)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 29986/2021 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CRP 61/2021 & CM APPL. 29985/2021 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10th
November, 2020, passed by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Saket
Courts, by which the leave to defend application filed by the
Respondent/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") has been allowed
unconditionally and permission has been granted to the Defendant to file the
written statement.
4. The written statement is stated to have been filed.
5. On the last date of hearing, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff
(hereinafter "Plaintiff"), was asked by this Court as to how the revision
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:15.09.2021 17:18:08
petition would be maintainable, owing to the judgments of this Court in -
Span Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishal Sharma [C.R.P. 31/2021,
decided on 16th April 2021] (Single Judge Bench);
Black Diamond Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Black Diamond
Motors Pvt. Ltd [CM(M) 132/2021, decided on 10th August, 2021
(Division Bench); and
M/s Rupin Associates v. Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors. [CRP 45/2021,
decided on 31st August, 2021]
6. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that if the Court is treating the
dispute as a commercial dispute, then he may be permitted to withdraw the
same with liberty to avail of his remedies in accordance with law.
7. A perusal of the plaint shows that the transaction is commercial in
nature, for supply of fabric. Thus, irrespective of the fact that the same may
not have been numbered as a commercial suit, the substratum of the dispute
is commercial in nature and would have to be adjudicated under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter "Act"). In such cases, despite the
suit not being numbered as a commercial suit or the dispute not having been
decided by a Commercial Court, the Act would apply and the bar under
Section 8, against filing of a revision application/petition against an
interlocutory order, would also be applicable.
8. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with
liberty being given to the Petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance
with law. All pending applications are disposed of.
9. It is directed that the suit titled Hari Singh v. M/s Superhouse Ltd.
numbered CS DJ/1342/2018 be re-numbered as a Commercial Suit and be
listed before the appropriate Commercial Court.
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:15.09.2021 17:18:08
10. The concerned District Judges in all District Courts to ensure that
disputes which are of a commercial nature are transferred to the Commercial
Courts so that the orders are passed in accordance with the Act.
11. Let a copy of this order be circulated by the worthy Registrar General
to all the District Judges. Copy of this order be also communicated to the
Additional District Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
mw/MS/T
